TubeNet

And since they are no longer employed, they have probably all sold or trashed their C tubas, which look like a Euphonium with an oversized bore (@.610 or more), and six piston valves in a 3+3 setup to get down the low octave to the pedals. There is a Cousenon in perfect condition for sale at Wichita Band Instruments for a mere $3600!

I think they're really, really garish-looking, for what it's worth, which is basically nothing.

But, as to the assertion that they're the "king daddy" of tubas, I would have to disagree profusely. I think any number of tubas, even excluding the original Yorks, would hold more of a claim on this title, particularly perhaps the PT-6 and the Yorkbrunner. I've seen far more extensive use of these professionally than the Culbertson.

I believe the Rudy Meinl 50 is even larger than a Yorkbrunner, and his largest BBb is absolutely gargantuan; both are reputed to have incredible tone and playability.

TubaTuck wrote:I can only offer an opinion based on photographs, but, to me, it looks like a beautiful horn.

I'm thinking that when I buy a new horn, my dream horn, that I want a big ol' 6/4 silver plated CC. This, at a minimum, is a couple of years away so I'll have time to secure heaps of input from you guys.

I could start another topic, but I'll just ask you crazy, funky cats: whats the transistion like for a lifetime BBb player moving to CC?

Tuck

How about getting a big ol' 6/4 silver plated BBb? Maybe one that will set you back $18k?



Visit Lee Stofer's tubameister.com for more information.

allow me to brag a bit and tell you about my last trip to Lee's 2 weeks ago.i actually got to play that beast.it is HUGE! it's so huge its CIRCUS FREAK huge.I see no practical application for it.It could hump my Holton 345 and still not be satisfied.it is HUGE.If you want an art quality,HUGEly beautiful tuba,this is it.

Look here:

http://www.tubameister.com/4sale.htm


It's a 6/4 Rudy Meinl BBb custom built tuba.

I haven't the slightest idea how it plays. As close as I've ever got was a 5/4 Rudy Meinl CC that I used to have...hardly the same.

TubaTuck wrote:There is nothing in the shot to give you perspective so I can't tell how BIG it is but, doggone, it is GORGEOUS!

Two questions:

1. What in the cornbread hell is it?

2. How'd it play?

Tuck

Back to the Neptune. The rotary models have a better reputation than the piston models. Lee Hipp of the San Antonio Symphony plays a rotary Neptune, so if you are up for a weekend road trip, you can hear one in action. I played on at the Brasswind a few weeks ago that I thought was pretty darn nice.

Now to the 6/4 Rudolf Meinl. I played this instrument at the Army conference. We should remember that the sizing system of Rudy Meinl is a bit different than other manufactuers. A 5/4 Rudy is close to the same size as most 6/4 instruments. For example, the 5/4 Rudy CC is about the same size as the VMI Neptune.

The 6/4 is gigantic, but it is surprisingly playable. I had no trouble moving around on it (at least within my own limitations). The sound has more focus than you would expect from a tuba this size. As Lee Stofer said, you don't want to play it more than five minutes, because it will just feel and sound so good that you'll want to spend the $18K it takes to get one.

But if King Daddiness is based on size, this is the King Daddy.

Rick "whose 6/4 Holton looks adolescent compared to the 6/4 Rudy" Denney

TubaTuck wrote:Hey Rick:

Great info. I'd love an opportunity to play that behemoth..OH! I forgot...I don't know how to play a CC! I'm gonna learn though.

So, what's the story on these "Nirschl" Yorks? Who actually makes them? Who sells them. Its my understanding that this was an attept to copy the York that Jacobs played with the CSO? Is this true. Were they successful. You ever play one?

Tuck

Nirschl is made by Walter Nirschl, who bought the Boehm and Meinl factory in 1991. Nirschl had a fling with Boosey and Hawkes, and has supplied parts to other manufacturers as well.

The big Nirschl is a copy of York #2, which Floyd Cooley measured for Nirschl to use during the period when he subbed in the Chicago Symphony (Arnold Jacobs sold both of the instruments to the CSO between his retirement and passing).

There are other copies of the Yorks, too. Holton was perhaps the first copy with the Model 345. It's different enough from the York to have it's own personality. The York-model (HB-50) Hirsbrunner was the first high-end copy of the York, and has been in production with a few changes since the early 80's when it first came out. Yamaha has just come out with a York copy, the 826-CC.

The Meinl-Weston 2165 was originally inspired by a Holton copy of a York, and has undergone a long evolution since the middle 80's when it came out. The 2265 is the current version, and now M-W has introduced even newer models.

All of these have their roots in the Monster BBb Bass offered by most of the big-name American makers in the first half of the 20th Century. Conn had the 36J Orchestra Grand Bass back in the 30's, for example. I think it was that instrument that led to the use of "grand orchestral tuba" as a general term for relatively short but extremely fat tubas with front-action pistons.

I have played most of the grand orchestral tubas at one time or another. I believe my battered old BBb Holton stands up to most of them. The one Nirschl I tried did not move me, but you can't judge by two minutes in the Elephant Room of a conference, and also these beasts are often as different within a brand as they are across brands. I have been really impressed by some of the conversions of old BBb Yorks into modern front-action tubas. The one big Conn that I owned had intonation challenges that were beyond me.

The Grand Orchestral tuba has been quite popular with some orchestral tuba players, even going back to the 20's and 30's. The York, for example, was made for Philip Donatelli of the Philadelphia Orchestra. This influence countered the 4/4 rotary tuba made popular even earlier by August Helleberg and then reinforced by Bill Bell. The rotary-tuba influence was stronger even then, and grew in strength up to perhaps the 70's, when the Yorkbrunner came out. At that time, the trend has gone the other way, to grand orchestral tubas instead of smaller rotary tubas. And the two influences have mixed producing such hybrid instruments as the VMI Neptune.

The general trend in all orchestras has been to larger and louder equipment. This is true with all instruments.

The Germans have always used big BBb rotary tubas in their orchestras as a specialty instrument. Their main instrument is an F tuba. The biggest Rudolf Meinl BBb tubas grew out of that tradition. They share the same roots as the rotary tubas popular in America. Their response to the trend for bigger stuff has been to upsize the standard rotary tuba rather than adopt the American-style grand orchestral tuba.

All this is a generalization, of course. There are some American orchestras whose player do not use really big equipment, and many who still use the traditional 4/4-5/4 rotary tuba. And there are some European orchestras going to the American design.

Rick "doing his part to feed Tuck's tuba fever" Denney

Tuba Tuck Wrote:

Great info. I'd love an opportunity to play that behemoth..OH! I forgot...I don't know how to play a CC! I'm gonna learn though.

Tuck, It's NOT a CC, it's a BBb.

I once played a Neptune 4098 and a pt6 side by side. The pt6 had a warmer sound, while the neptune seemed mushy. Of course these observations aren't completely fair because I didn't play either very long, but I figured I'd throw in my 2 cents and say that culbertsons creation is not a king daddy (although I wouldn't turn one down if the price was missing some k's)

they were both rotary

I got a chance to play Lee Hipps Neptune today and boy do I like the way his horn blows.

. . . . . . . . . .


Well I like everything about that horn.

He is currently playing some of the Laskey mouthpieces on it. Sounds real nice.

Tom wrote:Look here:

http://www.tubameister.com/4sale.htm


It's a 6/4 Rudy Meinl BBb custom built tuba.

I haven't the slightest idea how it plays. As close as I've ever got was a 5/4 Rudy Meinl CC that I used to have...hardly the same.

I tried this a few times earlier this year at the USABTEC. It is as large as it looks! In many ways it is effortless to play, meaning the response is very quick and intonation seemed very good. OTOH, I found myself wanting bigger lungs aftger playing it for a while. That may be due to my being used to playing on 0.689" bore horns (Besson 983 and King 2341) vs. the 0.870" bore through the valves of this thing. The bore increases very quickly through the tuning slide, with the far side of the tuning slide being over an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful piece of workmanship and great sounding tuba, but too much tuba for an amateur like me. I was still tempted to buy it but couldn't justify the money for something that I probably wouldn't use taht much. I would think it could be called the "King Daddy" of tubas available today, whatever that means.

DP wrote:Coupla/three comments:
1) I believe it was "York number 1" that was sent to Hirsbrunner for copying, but it was in the mid-80's.
2) The Holton 345 is not really a York copy at all, but it is a large horn designed to a great extent to Arnold Jacob's specification when he received sponsorship money from Holton in the 50's and 60's. It is similar to the Yorks, but taller and of all the big horns discussed has the most characteristically-unique sound.
3) The MW 2165 "project" started in 1991, there was one "copy" based on a Holton factory CC made in 1972, subsequent horns went through constant major as well as minor design changes. I don't think there's ever been 10 2165's in a row (out of hundreds!) built exactly the same!

1. Yup.

2. The 345 was made for Jacobs to use with the Holton-sponsored Chicago Symphony Brass Quintet. And my understanding was that Jacobs was interested in an available instrument similar to his York that he could recommend to his students. It was certainly modeled on the York, even if it wasn't a copy, per se. The valve tubing arrangements are very similar, and quite different from older front-action Holtons that I've seen. But Holton used their own mandrels for the outer branches and bell.

3. The 2165 introduction was later than I remembered, but '91 still sounds right. I lived in San Antonio at the time, and Orpheus was an importer. I played one of the first ones they brought into the U.S., and at that stage of my development I could barely make any sound at all on it. Now that I've been playing the Holton, the 2165's seem a lot more accessible to me.

Rick "whose Holton has a colorful sound that the 2165 requires much more skill to create" Denney

Having owned and performed on both (Culbertson Neptune and PT6), I will affirm two things said before:

1. If you can find a good Neptune - it is a great horn. My previous Neptune was without a doubt the most nimble and quick responding 6/4 I have EVER played. I do miss it, but having had some back problems, the distribution of the weight (not the weight itself) was proving to be a bit of a problem for me. The horn was a rotary and it was a much smoother player than the piston Neptunes by far. It had some quirky tuning problems but nothing good ears and good habits won't fix. It is not a diffucult horn to justify purchase given the price, but make sure you know the difference between a good horn and a great horn before you commit to a Neptune. Also make sure you have a good horn for smaller ensembles. The Neptune is NOT appropriate for some situations.

2. The PT6 has a well deserved reputation. It is my main horn these days. Extremely versatile and right at home in just about any group. I could go on and on...

At the end of the day I would choose a PT6 over a Neptune easily. I would choose to own a Neptune if I was a collector of horns and I would use it (and without reservation) in certain orchestral situations where it would be best applied.

Consider your needs first and don't get sucked into the idea that bigger is better.

P.S. I contacted a few people while I owned the Neptune about getting the spatulas replaces with ones that didn't have designs on them. I thought the floral patterns were a bit much!

The spatulas wasn't enough for me to NOT play the horn certainly, but if I had my choice I would take flat and smooth.

Totally about taste. Didn't affect performance in any way!

I always wondered why you don't get some different spatula designs out in the world. Maybe a set that are slightly spooned? Or a set engraved with images of famous tuba players or Mt. Rushmore or something...